PURYS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 20(1), NEW DELHI

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

These assessee’s twin appeals ITA nos. 4641 & 4642/Del/2025 for assessment years 2015-16 & 2016-17 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s DIN
&
orders
Nos.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076220857(1)
&
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076223849(1), both dated
15.05.2025
in proceedings u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ respectively.

Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte.
2. It is next noticed with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that assessee’s first and foremost identical substantive ground challenges validity of the impugned reopening (s) itself as learned Assessing Officer has initiated section 148
proceedings against the assessee for the purpose of verification of its purchases from Himalaya International, whereas the twin reassessment(s) have ended up in adding 8% profits on total turnover which stands upheld in the lower appellate discussion. It is thus clear that both the lower authorities have not made any addition qua the foregoing sole reopening ground of reopening. That being the case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories v. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) to quash both the impugned reopening (s) in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.
3. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 4641 & 4642/Del/2025 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files.
Pronounced in open court on 20.08.2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)

JUDICIAL MEMBER
*MP*